Enforceability of specific scheme provisions and obligations of parties under the scheme.

Ramesam, J.

1. This is an appeal against the order of the Sub-Court of Tiruvalur passed on a petition by the President of the Board of Control, Sri Thyagarajaswami Devasthanam, of Tiruvalur. The Board of Control was appointed in pursuance of the scheme framed by this Court in Gyanasambanda Pandara v. Vaithilinga Mudaliar A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 168 on appeal from O.S. 52 of 1913, Temporary Sub-Court, Tanjore.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that no appeal lies. The scheme framed by the High Court contains a clause (Cl. 27) that any of the parties or the Board of Control as a body or the Advocate-General are at liberty to apply to the Court for any modification of the scheme. But the present application is not an application for any modification of the scheme and does not come under this clause. In the present application the President of the Board of Control complains that some of the kattalaidars would not send complete budgets of their receipts and expenditure, nor would deliver the cash in their hands to the treasurer as provided by Clauses 8 and 13 of the scheme and the president applies to the Court for getting the clause enforced, by attachment of the properties or by detention of the recalcitrant defendants. The Subordinate Judge has not given the relief sought by the petitioner. Hence this appeal.

3. The respondents in support of their preliminary objection rely on the following cases: Sevak Jeranchod Bhogi-lal v. Dakore Temple Committee A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 155, Ranganatha Thathachariar v. Krishnaswami Thathachariar A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 369; Vythilinga Mudaliar v. Mahadeva Aiyar A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 659; Sivam Pillai v. Venkateswara Aiyar A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 130, Abdul Hakim Baig v. Burrammudin A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 559; and Brahmayya v. Venkatasuryanarayanamurthi A.I.R. 1926 Mad. 557. Most of the decisions of the High Court rely on the first of the above decisions which is a decision of the Privy Council. Mr. Varadachariar who appears for the appellant while conceding that most of these other decisions are correctly decided attacked the correctness of the reasoning in the judgments, especially the inference sought to be drawn from the Privy Council decision. It becomes, therefore, necessary to examine what was exactly decided by the Privy Council and how far the decision supports the inference sought to be drawn from it by Judges of this Court. In that case there was a scheme framed by the Privy Council. The scheme provided for the appointment of a temple committee and empowered the committee to make rules. There is also a provision for the, rules being sanctioned or modified by the District Court. There is another clause for the alteration of the scheme by the High Court of Bombay. The committee made the rules and the rules were submitted to the District Court for sanction and the District Judge modified the rules. There was an appeal to the High Court under Section 47, Civil P.C., against the order of the District Judge. There was also an independent application to the High Court for the alteration of the scheme. But no orders were passed on this application. The High Court on appeal from the District Court modified the order of the District Judge. But the Privy Council held that no appeal lay to the High Court under Section 47, Civil P.C., and it should have been rejected. They pointed out that the High Court might have exercised the power conferred on it by the clause which enabled it to modify the scheme, The Privy Council did not say that if the High Court exercised such power that would not have been in execution and no appeal lay against it. They expressed no opinion on the matter. All that they decided was that the order of the District Judge modifying the rules made by the committee was not an order in execution. So far as the alteration of the rules is concerned, it cannot be said that anything was sought to be enforced by one party as a judgment-creditor against another party as judgment-debtor who